Hi
So David and Stephan recommended that I make the accessor methods to
o3tl::sorted_vector const in order to prevent clients from invalidating
the sorted-ness of it.
This works out fine when I'm storing pointers to something in the
sorted_vector like this:
struct SomeStruct {
int xxx;
}
o3tl::sorted_vector<SomeStruct*> var1;
var1[0]->xxx = 12;
Which is because thanks to C++'s typing rules, const-ness does not
propogate with a pointer.
However, if I do this:
o3tl::sorted_vector<SomeStruct> var1;
var1[0].xxx = 12; // <--- error! reference is const!!!
And, in fact, if I store any value class directly into
o3tl::sorted_vector, it becomes pretty much useless, because I can't get
anything out of it afterwards without casting away the const-ness.
What is the "correct C++ idiom" here?
Should I create a separate container types here?
And if so, what would be a good names to distinguish between the "sorted
vector for pointers to values" and the "sorted vector for values" ?
I don't want to use sorted_ptr_vector, because that sounds too much like
a boost::ptr_vector, and might confuse people as to the ownership
semantics of this thing.
Thanks, Noel Grandin
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
